Category: Opinion

Last month we blogged about calls to add Ravens to the Scottish General Licence, which would allow the indiscriminate killing of this species (see here).

Our blog was tongue-in-cheek, illustrated by a picture of a raven carrying off a polar bear cub, to highlight the ridiculousness of the hysteria. (Illustration by Jackie Morris, from The Ice Bear)

Since then, the frenzy has been ramped up somewhat, culminating in an appallingly biased report on last night’s BBC Reporting Scotland (available to view here, but only until 7pm tonight. Piece starts at 10.10 mins).

In a nutshell, Ravens can currently be killed, on individual licences issued by SNH, where they are considered to pose a threat of ‘serious damage’ to livestock. However, farmers and gamekeepers are saying these individual licences are too restrictive and they want Ravens to be added to the General Licence so they may be killed indiscriminately, in the same way crows are killed. A petition has been launched but so far has only attracted 2,684 signatures, despite being widely publicised by the farming community as well as by the game-shooting community.

In contrast, a petition calling for SNH to maintain the protected status of Ravens in Scotland has reached 28, 453 signatures (see here).

At the heart of the calls from the farming and game-shooting communities is a distinct lack of factual evidence. Where are the post-mortem results of these “hundreds of lambs” that farmers are claiming have been killed by Ravens? Just because they see a Raven (well-known for being quick to exploit scavenging opportunities) pecking at a dead sheep doesn’t mean the sheep has been killed by the Raven.

Other lack of factual evidence (more like an old wives’ tale) about the supposed impact of Ravens on waders was put forward last year by Doug McAdam, CEO of Scottish Land & Estates. This was ably torn to shreds, using scientific data, by Ian Thomson of RSPB Scotland (have a read here).

Last night’s BBC report opened with the line: “In scenes that are more Hitchcock than Countryfile, hundreds of young lambs are being killed by attacks from Ravens”. The report didn’t improve, with phrases like “Wreaking havoc”, “Carnage”, “Images of the slaughtered lambs are too gory to show you”, “Hundreds of losses”, “Raven numbers have exploded over the past year”, and “Birds of darkness”.

Birds of darkness?! Come on BBC, how on earth does this resemble objective, impartial broadcasting!

The BBC report included interviews with individuals who were all pro-Raven-killing but there wasn’t one representative from any conservation organisation to challenge the so-called ‘facts’.

Not only did the BBC report exclude any commentary from a conservation organisation, it also excluded information about the counter-petition to maintain the Raven’s protected status, it excluded any discussion of Raven foraging behaviour (i.e. scavenging vs actual predation), it failed to mention that the Scottish Raven population is still recovering from persecution – it’s doing well in some areas but is still absent in other areas and is still subject to illegal persecution, notably from poisoning, it failed to discuss the husbandry practices of sheep farmers in an area with the harshest climate in Britain and how those practices may impact on lamb deaths, and it failed to mention the population status of Ravens and sheep:

The current breeding population for Ravens in Scotland is estimated at 6,000 pairs.

The current population of sheep in Scotland, according to Scottish Government stats, is 6.7 million sheep.

Perhaps the worst aspect of the BBC report was the accompanying footage. There was footage of a few Ravens at the beginning, but then inexplicably it switched to footage of Rooks! And not just Rooks flying around above some sheep, but it included footage of a rookery – a large cluster of nests in a few trees, which would mislead any viewer who can’t differentiate between a Rook and a Raven into thinking that Ravens are so common they’re nesting in colonies next to lambing fields!

There was a brief interview with Robbie Kernahan of SNH who said that Ravens would be considered for inclusion on the General Licence at a forthcoming meeting. We understand that meeting is due to take place on Monday 16th May.

Last year it is understood that SNH issued 120 licences to kill Ravens, resulting in 560 shot birds. There is absolutely no scientific justification whatsoever to add the Raven to the General Licence, which would undoubtedly result in thousands of unregulated deaths, especially when the Raven population is still in recovery.

If you want to sign the petition to send a clear message to SNH that Ravens should NOT be added to the General Licence but should remain a protected species, please sign HERE.

If you want to complain to the BBC about their chronically biased reporting, please email: haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk

Calls are being made to put ravens on the General Licence, which would allow them to be killed indiscriminately (see here).

Bert Burnett of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association is supporting the latest petition and said:

“Ravens, no matter where you go now in our countryside you have every chance to see or hear ravens, but they are not like small children who as the saying goes ‘should be seen and not heard’, if you see them they will be doing damage and even if you hear them they will be planning damage“.

Here’s a raven carrying off a polar bear cub.

[Artwork by Jackie Morris, from The Ice Bear]

“Burning heather is the same as getting your hair cut“, according to Tim (Kim) Baynes of the Scottish Moorland Group.

Yes, I always look forward to visiting the hairdresser to have my hair doused with a fire accelerant and then lit with a blow torch.

The grouse-shooting industry’s latest outlandish claim comes as part of another PR damage limitation exercise, this time in a failed attempt to explain to the public why huge areas of grouse moor-dominated landscape are being set alight. You can read this latest propaganda piece here.

It’s true that burning can be a useful conservation tool in certain circumstances, on some habitat types and if used in moderation. However, the increasing intensity with which grouse moor managers burn sensitive upland moorland habitats is not a useful conservation tool. It’s actually far from it, despite the latest vacuous claims of the grouse shooting industry.

See here for the key findings of a recent study by scientists at Leeds University in to the effects of moorland burning on peatlands. Not many conservation benefits described here.

See here for the findings of a recent study by scientists from the RSPB in to the extent of moorland burning in the UK. Not many conservation benefits described here either. In fact burning was detected in 55% of Special Areas of Conservation and in 63% of Special Protection Areas. These sites are designated under EU legislation for their conservation value and yet many are in ‘unfavourable condition’ with burning identified as the primary cause.

And see here for Mark Avery’s view on how burning (combined with draining) is likely to be linked to increased flooding downstream.

Sign the petition calling for a ban on environmentally, economically and socially damaging driven grouse shooting HERE.

Photo of grouse moor ablaze, March 2016 (RPS).

The admissibility (or, more to the point, the inadmissibility) of covert video footage as evidence in wildlife crime cases has long been a source of fascination and, for us at least, confusion.

We’ve blogged about it a lot over the years and we’ve received some interesting and useful responses from some legal commentators (e.g. see the comment from ‘Edinburgh Observer’ on this 2012 blog). Sometimes covert video footage has been accepted as admissible evidence (more so in English courts than Scottish courts, although it is being increasingly challenged in raptor persecution trials in the English courts) and other times, inexplicably to us lay observers, it has been ruled inadmissible. The decision to rule on inadmissibility in Scotland has, for a long time, been taken by the Crown Office rather than by a Sheriff, which has caused consternation among some observers, with a notable exception being the Mutch trial, where the Sheriff ruled the RSPB’s video evidence was indeed admissible, but only because the RSPB was able to show the footage was a by-product of a wider, legitimate research project (in this case the use of crow cage traps), rather than the camera being placed with the sole intention of filming someone committing a criminal act.

We were surprised, then, to read the news yesterday about the use of covert video footage obtained by the League Against Cruel Sports Scotland (LACS) that has led to the arrest of two people accused of alleged fox-hunting offences in the Borders. Not only that, but the video footage has already been placed in the public domain by the BBC, prior to any subsequent trial. The footage can be seen on the BBC news website here, included in a mini-documentary about fox-hunting in general. It’s well worth a look.

So what was it about this video footage that made it admissible, rather than inadmissible evidence? At this stage, we know the footage has been deemed admissible because two individuals have been charged on the basis of what was filmed. In the British justice system, you arrest on suspicion, charge on evidence, and convict on proof. If this case does reach trial, the footage may well be later challenged in court and ruled inadmissible by the Sheriff; we’ll have to wait and see. But for now, the Police (and presumably the Crown Office who would have advised on whether charges could be brought) have accepted the footage as admissible evidence, otherwise these two individuals would not have been charged.

There are several ways to look at admissibility in this case. If you watch the BBC’s mini-documentary, there’s an interview with Robbie Marsland, the Director of LACS Scotland. In that interview, Robbie seems to suggest that LACS Scotland hired wildlife crime investigators specifically to monitor the activities of Scottish hunts. He said he gave his investigators explicit instructions to remain covert while filming, because, justifiably, he didn’t want the overt presence of observers to alter the behaviour of the hunts they were monitoring. So in this case, you could argue that the LACS investigators were filming covertly and specifically to catch someone committing a criminal offence. On the other hand, it’s also quite clear from the interview with Robbie that this was part of a wider research project being undertaken by LACS. It wasn’t just the Jedforest Hunt that was being filmed – other Scottish hunts were also being filmed because LACS had received persistent intelligence reports that some hunts were breaking the law, even though the Police and Crown Office said they hadn’t received any reports.  LACS began a wider research project to investigate patterns of behaviour among Scottish hunts.

To our mind, this scenario is very similar to the way the RSPB investigations team operates. When they undertake covert video monitoring they’re not just filming on one estate, they’re actively monitoring many estates because, as with LACS, they receive persistent intelligence reports that some estates are illegally killing raptors. Surely this could be viewed as being a ‘wider research project’, in the same way that LACS has operated?

The public release of the LACS footage, prior to a subsequent trial, is also interesting. We’re not sure the RSPB has ever done this before a trial, although they certainly have released footage post trial. Perhaps the early release of the LACS footage can be explained because, as the footage was captured from some distance to the hunt, it is virtually impossible to identify any individuals in the released LACS video. That’s important, especially in Scotland, where identification can be an issue in a trial. Because of this, it can be considered contempt of court to publish an image of the accused prior to conviction (although apparently you can in England) because it might prejudice a fair trial by influencing the jury. RSPB video footage, on the other hand, tends to be have been filmed at much closer range where the suspect’s identity is often clear.

However, as the two suspects in the LACS case have been charged with alleged summary offences (case heard by a single Sheriff rather than by a jury), as is often the case with suspects charged with summary offences on the basis of RSPB footage, then there’s no jury to prejudice so why not release the footage early?

All in all then, an intriguing (and still confusing) situation and we’ll watch with interest to see how this develops.